Mass Shooting at Texas Church

[Llevron]

Whats our defense if a couple of these guys decide to group up instead of doing a lone wolf thing? That idea worries me alot 

[spjunkies]

1 minute ago, Llevron said:

Whats our defense if a couple of these guys decide to group up instead of doing a lone wolf thing? That idea worries me alot 

 

Isn't that what sparked the whole Waco thing? The government thought some nuts were gathering together to start a war or something? Unfortunately, I have no idea how multiple lunatics can be stopped.

[Destino]

2 hours ago, Fergasun said:

German style gun control:

Licensed

Valid reason (shooters, hunters, collectors)

Psych evaluation under 25

Must demonstrate trust, personal adequecy, and expert level knowledge of gun handling

Cannot openly carry

 

But there is no restriction on pre 1871 single shot percussion firearms.

 

We make it too easy in America....

 

Could that survive a court challenge?

[AsburySkinsFan]

2 hours ago, Fergasun said:

German style gun control:

Licensed

Valid reason (shooters, hunters, collectors)

Psych evaluation under 25

Must demonstrate trust, personal adequecy, and expert level knowledge of gun handling

Cannot openly carry

 

But there is no restriction on pre 1871 single shot percussion firearms.

 

We make it too easy in America....

 

41 minutes ago, twa said:

 

I mean the ones you refuse to say.,which makes it rather difficult to make progress.

 

Checking the box does not defeat it

 

odd he was denied a texas concealed permit earlier yet apparently the feds missed his record.

Read Fergasun’s post, put the onus on the buyer to demonstrate that they are responsible enough for a firearm. 

I’d add to that list:

No private firearm sales.

All firearms registered, failure to do so is a felony with mandatory jail time.

 

And apparently the checkbox DID defeat it, but that was most likely due to the GOP defunding most of these efforts so they can have the appearance of gun control without actually having gun control.

[PeterMP]

14 minutes ago, Destino said:

Could that survive a court challenge?

 

Not with the current Supreme Court.  Maybe 20 years ago, yes, but not now.

 

CNN is reporting:

 

"There was no disqualifying information in the background check conducted as required for the purchase, a law enforcement official told CNN."

 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/06/us/texas-church-shooting/index.html

 

Not sure exactly what that means.  Is that an indication that since he wasn't a dishonorable discharge, but only a bad behavior one that he was allowed to buy a gun?  Or that he lied on the form?

[Dan T.]

So this guy, Johnnie Langendorff

 

 

was driving to his girlfriend's house when he saw two guys engaged in a gun battle on the dusty streets of Sutherland Springs.  One of the shooters dropped his gun and hopped in a car.  The other guy jumped in Johnnie's truck and said "That guy just shot up a church. Follow him."

 

So Johnnie floored it, and the two chased the church shooter at speeds as high as 95 mph as they kept 911 dispatchers informed of their location, right up until the shooter crashed his car

 

Because Texas.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/11/06/an-unlikely-hero-describes-gun-battle-and-95-mph-chase-with-texas-shooting-suspect/?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-high_no-name%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.37f193349f17

 

 

[PeterMP]

56 minutes ago, twa said:

odd he was denied a texas concealed permit earlier yet apparently the feds missed his record.

 

There are different requirements in many states to own a gun vs. have a concealed permit.  Wouldn't take it all that anything was "missed" yet vs. not allowed to be part of the federal background check.

Given the current Supreme Court anything short of a Constitutional amendment isn't going to do much good.

[Llevron]

That car chase sounds like it could have ended with more death if it was in someplace like DC. Glad it worked but that should not the be expectation here. 

[StillUnknown]

24 minutes ago, Llevron said:

That car chase sounds like it could have ended with more death if it was in someplace like DC. Glad it worked but that should not the be expectation here. 

 

i'm just imagining a scene with a black dude with tats around his neck chasing another shooter with a gun

 

i see only one way that story ends

[Destino]

30 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

Not with the current Supreme Court.  Maybe 20 years ago, yes, but not now.

If that's true, it's pointless.  Is there a way to prevent these mass murders and make it through the courts.  There's really nothing else to talk about if you support legislative solutions to this.  I have no interest in shouting insults at political rivals, it gains us nothing and changes no opinions.  If we want change we must be able to offer an alternative.  

[AsburySkinsFan]

A constitutional amendement will be necessary to end these events. The court is unwilling to interpret the founder’s intent of the Constitution on this issue. 

 

Things have to seriously change.

3 minutes ago, Destino said:

If that's true, it's pointless.  Is there a way to prevent these mass murders and make it through the courts.  There's really nothing else to talk about if you support legislative solutions to this.  I have no interest in shouting insults at political rivals, it gains us nothing and changes no opinions.  If we want change we must be able to offer an alternative.  

The only insults I shout anymore is at the feigning of concern about those murdered in these mass murder events.

[Destino]

4 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

The only insults I shout anymore is at the feigning of concern about those murdered in these mass murder events.

And you decide which concerns are genuine and which are not?  

[88Comrade2000]

It's just something we have to live with.  Even if someone came into congress and shot and killed all of them and went into the Supreme Court and shot and killed them; nothing will change.

[mistertim]

10 minutes ago, Destino said:

If that's true, it's pointless.  Is there a way to prevent these mass murders and make it through the courts.  There's really nothing else to talk about if you support legislative solutions to this.  I have no interest in shouting insults at political rivals, it gains us nothing and changes no opinions.  If we want change we must be able to offer an alternative.  

 

[Llevron]

10 minutes ago, Destino said:

If that's true, it's pointless.  Is there a way to prevent these mass murders and make it through the courts.  There's really nothing else to talk about if you support legislative solutions to this.  I have no interest in shouting insults at political rivals, it gains us nothing and changes no opinions.  If we want change we must be able to offer an alternative.  

 

I agree that if nothing is going to change than I would rather not waste my break. But I wonder if political opinion drives this more than we think. And if it doesnt then there really is nothing we can do and that is kinda scary. 

[Popeman38]

56 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

 

Read Fergasun’s post, put the onus on the buyer to demonstrate that they are responsible enough for a firearm. 

I’d add to that list:

No private firearm sales.

All firearms registered, failure to do so is a felony with mandatory jail time.

 

And apparently the checkbox DID defeat it, but that was most likely due to the GOP defunding most of these efforts so they can have the appearance of gun control without actually having gun control.

At that point, you no longer have a "right" to own a gun.  Now we can use the same logic to put the onus on the voter to demonstrate that they are responsible enough to vote...

[AsburySkinsFan]

2 minutes ago, Destino said:

And you decide which concerns are genuine and which are not?  

The definition of insanity is repeating the same action expecting a different result. #Thoughts&Prayers is a farce now. They insist that they care but they choose to maintain the status quo.

 

Actions speak louder than words...and in this case innaction.

Just now, Popeman38 said:

At that point, you no longer have a "right" to own a gun.  Now we can use the same logic to put the onus on the voter to demonstrate that they are responsible enough to vote...

Which is why the 2nd Amendment needs to change.

As for the voting thing...let’s discuss that somewhere else.

[PeterMP]

15 minutes ago, Destino said:

If that's true, it's pointless.  Is there a way to prevent these mass murders and make it through the courts.  There's really nothing else to talk about if you support legislative solutions to this.  I have no interest in shouting insults at political rivals, it gains us nothing and changes no opinions.  If we want change we must be able to offer an alternative.  

 

It isn't pointless.  It'll just take a long time.  It took 50+ years for Plessey vs Furgeson to fall, but that doesn't mean that the actions of everybody that worked against segregation in those intervening years were pointless.

3 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

At that point, you no longer have a "right" to own a gun.  Now we can use the same logic to put the onus on the voter to demonstrate that they are responsible enough to vote...

 

There is no Constitutional qualifier to the right to vote.  There is no discussion of a well regulated voting population.

[AJ*]

3 hours ago, Fergasun said:

German style gun control:

Licensed

Valid reason (shooters, hunters, collectors)

Psych evaluation under 25

Must demonstrate trust, personal adequecy, and expert level knowledge of gun handling

Cannot openly carry

 

But there is no restriction on pre 1871 single shot percussion firearms.

 

We make it too easy in America....

 

 

Anyone else find it ironic that Trump had to address yet another gun massacre right in front of Japan's leaders...a country with the lowest gun violence rate in the world thanks to their gun control laws?

In order to get a gun in Japan you have to get a mental health check, have drug tests, have your criminal history checked and to see if you've ever belonged to any extremist groups (relatives too), attend an all-day class, take a written exam, and pass a shooting range test. Must be nice to have leaders that don't have to get on their knees in front of the gun lobby.

[Popeman38]

1 minute ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Which is why the 2nd Amendment needs to change.

According to ASF.  The 2nd Amendment is perfectly fine.  What needs to change is the manner in which common sense gun control is enacted.  It doesn't need to be a state by state thing, it needs to be a federal thing.

 

-Close the gun show loophole and provide an easy avenue for private sales to include background checks.

-Limit the number of firearms allowed to be purchased in X time.

-Reduce magazine capacity to 5 or 7.

-Require a federal license for anything that can rapidly fire multiple magazines.

-Outlaw bump stocks or anything that allows a semi-automatic to fire in automatic mode.

 

I can keep going.  Abolishing the 2nd Amendment is an unnecessary step, and would lead to scary times for government.  Once they find a way to remove one right, the ideas start forming...

 

[Destino]

2 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

The definition of insanity is repeating the same action expecting a different result. #Thoughts&Prayers is a farce now. They insist that they care but they choose to maintain the status quo.

 

Actions speak louder than words...and in this case innaction.

Showing support for communities hit by tragedy is the right thing to do.  Even if it's little more than a polite gesture, it's a bit of polite behavior worth engaging in.  However, I'm open to your arguments that empathy without action is hollow.  So by all means, tell us what actions you've taken.  

[twa]

49 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

There are different requirements in many states to own a gun vs. have a concealed permit.  Wouldn't take it all that anything was "missed" yet vs. not allowed to be part of the federal background check.

Given the current Supreme Court anything short of a Constitutional amendment isn't going to do much good.

 

Federal law(which is what the background check is) forbids those convicted of domestic violence in any court from buying a gun....ya need to be asking why they missed two counts of it.(and it is not because of a checkbox)

 

Might be nice to see why Texas declined him.

[bearrock]

19 minutes ago, Destino said:

If that's true, it's pointless.  Is there a way to prevent these mass murders and make it through the courts.  There's really nothing else to talk about if you support legislative solutions to this.  I have no interest in shouting insults at political rivals, it gains us nothing and changes no opinions.  If we want change we must be able to offer an alternative.  

You could probably pass constitutional muster with license, psych eval, and safety training.  Those are good things to implement I think. I would imagine a license is already implemented but looks like background check could use some beefing up.

[Popeman38]

9 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

There is no Constitutional qualifier to the right to vote.  There is no discussion of a well regulated voting population.

Well, that boat has sailed.  There is to be no standing Army either...

[AsburySkinsFan]

1 minute ago, Destino said:

Showing support for communities hit by tragedy is the right thing to do.  Even if it's little more than a polite gesture, it's a bit of polite behavior worth engaging in.  However, I'm open to your arguments that empathy without action is hollow.  So by all means, tell us what actions you've taken.  

I petition my representatives constantly.

I also live in Kentucky, so I get ignored a lot.

I talk to my friends and family, but I live in Kentucky so I get ignored a lot.

I’ve signed petitions, but I live in Kentucky so that gets ignored.

Care to tell me what more I should do?